The pressure to fudge medical research findings

The medical research community has uncovered a worrying trend: why are large numbers of medical researchers apparently misrepresenting their findings? Sophie Scott investigates.

Australia has a proud tradition of being a world leader when it comes to medical breakthroughs.

Think of the 'bionic ear', the cervical cancer vaccine and the Nobel prize-winning discovery of Helicobacter pylori, just to name a few.

These discoveries have had world-wide impact and saved thousands of lives.

While there is much to be proud of, when it comes to biomedical research there appears to be a disturbing trend in Australia.

Three major Australian universities are currently investigating serious allegations of alleged research misconduct.

The claims range from possibly manipulated images, falsified data to - unbelievably - allegations that a study with published results never actually took place.

How is this possible, with the systems of checks and balances within universities and the international peer review process for published research?

The ABC has detailed new allegations about alleged research misconduct at one of Australia's leading universities.

The University of New South Wales is already embroiled in a long-running inquiry into research overseen by professor Levon Khachigian, the scientist behind a cancer compound called DZ13. Now they're investigating whether images in a scientific paper he co-authored last year on cardiovascular disease were duplicated.

Findings in 90 per cent of the important cancer papers published in significant medical journals could not be replicated.

The latest allegations centre on a scientific paper looking at how smooth muscle cells change into plaque, a key cause of heart attacks.

The UNSW is investigating a paper co-authored by Professor Khachagian published in a scientific journal PlosOne last year.

The core of the complaint is whether images in the scientific paper were manipulated. One image appears to have been rotated to show a different result.

In an email to the ABC Professor Khachigian says it was a genuine error and says he's never engaged in research misconduct.

It's not the first accusation levelled at research overseen by Professor Khachigian. In August this year, the ABC detailed serious concerns about research into a cancer compound DZ13. The drug had been tested on a small group of skin cancer patients and was about to be trialled on people with melanoma.

But with growing concerns about the science, the tests were suspended pending the outcome of the university's inquiries. The investigation is still on-going.

In another case this year, it appears that a patient-based study wasn't even conducted, despite positive 'results' being published.

At the University of Queensland, senior management was forced to return a grant of $20,000 from Parkinsons Australia and retract a scientific paper co-written by former staffer Professor Bruce Murdoch, from the Centre for Neurogenic Communication Disorders Research.

The university discovered that a study into trans cranial magnetic stimulation for Parkinson's disease may not have actually been carried out.

"No primary data can be located and no evidence has been found that the study described in the article was conducted," according to the University of Queensland.

A paper on the study was published online in 2012 in the European Journal of Neurology which was subsequently retracted. The University is still investigating the matter.

A further case concerns a wound healing cream developed at the Queensland Institute of Technology.

Luke Cormack was a PhD student who alerted a scientific journal about what he believes are inconsistencies in research on growing human embryonic stem cells in the laboratory. While an internal investigation cleared researchers involved of misconduct, there are now claims that research grants may have been paid upon the basis of false information.

The National Health and Medical Research Council has referred the matter to the Australian Research Integrity Committee, a body which can look into procedural matters regarding research integrity.

In Australia, scientists are governed by the Australian Code on the Responsible Conduct of Research. Any allegations of research misconduct are investigated directly by the universities or institutions involved.

While it may convene an external enquiry panel to look into any prima facie case of research misconduct, it's still the university itself which has a final say on penalties. What Australia needs, according to Professor David Vaux, from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, is an independent office for research integrity or an ombudsman, to advise institutions and handling allegations of misconduct.

He proposes a model similar to the United States office for research integrity which handles hundreds of research allegations each year.

He says having an independent umpire, removed from universities and research institutions, would ensure matters could be handled fairly. Without an independent office like that, it's difficult to know just how widespread research misconduct is. But around the world, there is an increasing focus on re-testing accepted findings to check their veracity.

In a commentary published in journal Nature in 2012, scientists from biotech company Amgen found that findings in 90 per cent of the important cancer papers published in significant medical journals could not be replicated, even with the help of original scientists.

In another review, scientists at the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked back at 67 scientific projects, covering the majority of Bayer's work in oncology, women's health and cardiovascular medicine over the past four years. Of these, they found results from internal experiments matched up with the published findings in only 14 projects, but were highly inconsistent in 43 (in a further 10 projects, claims were rated as mostly reproducible, partially reproducible or not applicable.)

"People take for granted what they see published," John Ioannidis, an expert on data reproducibility at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California wrote in Nature in Sep 2011. "But this and other studies are raising deep questions about whether we can really believe the literature, or whether we have to go back and do everything on our own."

While some of the un-reproducable results could be due to sloppy research, it appears that much of it is a result of deliberate misconduct. This was clear from a paper published last year.

Dr Ferris C Fang conducted a detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012. It revealed that only 21.3 per cent of retractions were attributable to error.

Dr Fang's findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science in 2012. It revealed that 67.4 per cent of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4 per cent), duplicate publication (14.2 per cent), and plagiarism (9.8 per cent).

"Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic," he wrote. "The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased 10-fold since 1975."

The reasons why some scientists might engage in research misconduct remain unclear but it's likely that multiple factors are at play.

With scientists constantly having to compete for precious research grants, the pressure to come up with successful findings is intense. To prosper, scientists need to publish as many papers as possible, ideally in well-respected journals.

Dr Fang told the New York Times in April 2012, that "the scramble to publish in high impact journals may be leading to more and more errors".

And the peer review process for identifying anomalies in research before it is published is clearly failing.

So much so, that in August 2010 two medical reporters, based in the United States, set up a website called Retraction Watch.

Since Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky launched RetractionWatch, they say it's been a struggle to even keep up with retractions as they happen. Marcus is the managing editor of Anesthesiology News, a monthly magazine for anaesthetists. Oransky is the vice president and global editorial director of MedPage

Today and teaches medical journalism at New York University's Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program. So far, their blog has analysed more than 250 retractions in nearly 350 posts since its launch.

RetractionWatch averages 150,000 page views a month with around six posts about retracted papers each week, something the web sites creators did not expect when they set it up.

Reducing the incidence of research misconduct will not be easy. With all the checks and balances in place, there could be some willing to cut corners, and rejig findings to gain some advantage. The challenge is making it as difficult as possible for that happen.

Comments (174)

Forrest Gardener:

25 Oct 2013 8:48:48am

Quote: With scientists constantly having to compete for precious research grants, the pressure to come up with successful findings is intense. To prosper, scientists need to publish as many papers as possible, ideally in well-respected journals.

This issue is well known and quite corrosive to the good name of science.

Warm alarmists would do well to consider the extent to which this issue has undermined the fledgling field of climate science.

morrgo:

The same principle is not applied to post-normal climate science where outputs from crude models of complex systems are acceptable as proof and real-life data are dismissed if in disagreement with model output.

Those awarding grants ought to insist on the application of conventional, rigorous scientific principles in all fields.

ptb:

25 Oct 2013 10:49:25am

Good idea. Tricky thing with climate science though is that no-one's managed to create a few full sized planets closely resembling earth where time can be sped up by a factor of 1000 or so on which scientists can perform "hypothesis testing via reproducible physical means".

Roger:

25 Oct 2013 2:58:50pm

When you see an endless steam of "scientists" making up stuff about so-called "Climate Science", rigging the review process and being handsomely rewarded with promotions, grants and love-ins by the main stream media, why is it a surprise that this destruction of the scientific method starts to spread to other areas of science?

casewithscience:

25 Oct 2013 12:35:25pm

Medical science is not entirely scientific. While bio-mechanics does involve the traditional approach, most medicine is looser than the physical sciences and often relies on qualitative data (particularly true for internal medicine). Psychiatry is way out there!!!

The Antipodean:

25 Oct 2013 12:57:10pm

"Fudging those tests is possible to identify if someone tries."

Precisely. But it's only with the luxury of enormous funding as Glen Begley has at Amgen that he was able to spend the time/money to try to replicate medical research... and failed to replicate 89% of it. No-one has the time or money otherwise to replicate.

Sceptical Sam:

25 Oct 2013 1:10:04pm

I suspect morrgo if the Abbott government were to set up an enquiry into possible fraudulent climate "science' we would see some very prominent names (researchers, institutions and universities) diving for cover.

The ARC grants provided to climate "researchers" should be the starting point.

Mycal:

25 Oct 2013 6:10:55pm

morrgo I hate to rain on your parade, but climate science is not just about models, there's significant and substantial empirical evidence and data collection involved as well. I know it's unfortunate when some of that evidence confirms CC but you can't dismiss it all because some of it also does not conform to the model predictions.

John Coochey :

25 Oct 2013 10:14:48am

In 1998 I was the first person in history to make the Natioanal Health and Medical Research Council withdraw a paper which had errors that a fourteen year old should have been able to see. It was on abortion and had probably been the most peer reviewed paper in Australia with religious groups criticising it but not looking close enough to find the fourteen fatal errors. The most obvious blunder was the claim that abortions had not increased since they were in effect decrimilised. The authors had included spontaneous abortions in figures for the nineteen thirties but excluded them for recent figures. As a third of pregnancies spontaneously miscarry it then appeared that the number of abortions had not increased. It only took a few minutes looking at the original 1934 report to see what is now termed an abortion was then termed an illegal operation and was not included in that particular data set. The authors were so myopic they did not or chose not to pick this up.

JoeBloggs:

What was the rate of illegal 'backyard' abortions that were never disclosed to the authorities back in 1934?

Were those non-disclosed, but occuring, abortions factored in?

That said, isn't it wonderful that women now have the right to control their own fertility and also no longer need to avail themselves of the services provided by illegal 'backyard' abortionists which were a real risk to the womans life.

I find it particularly great that here in Australia the religious groups not longer dictate policy, unlike in some countries in (Catholic) South America where women can be jailed for life for not only having an abortion but also for having a spontaneous abortion/miscarriage.

John Coochey :

25 Oct 2013 2:06:11pm

The authors of the 1934 study admitted that they did not know but it is interesting that that was the first ever NHMRC study of anything and was initiated not because of large numbers of maternal deaths (a false claim in the 97 study) but because of declining birth rates which was worrying the authorities at the time). However if what feminists were telling us, a third of women were having illegal operations (back yard abortions) and it was very dangerous then we should have had a missing generation of women (parallel to the missing generation of men in France because of WW1) and furthermore an issue of disposal of their bodies paralleling problems the Nazis had with body disposals in the death camps. The claims were thus obviously balderdash and should have been obvious to anyone. A parallel failure in logic is various studies of the 96 Gun Buyback claiming it was responsible for a gradual decline in gun deaths to the present. Here I refer to "Weak tests and strong conclusions" by Labor MP Andrew Leigh and press articles by Professor Simon Chapman. Now the number of firearms and owners has increased in Australia since then but gun related deaths have continued to decline at the same rate as before 96. Bom Bom! But think about it hundreds of thousand of semi automatic firearms were seized over a very short period. So if you think this was responsible for a gradual decline in subsequent deaths then you must believe that your chances of being killed by a firearm are inversely proportional to the length of time since it was destroyed, put simply a firearm destroyed in 96 continues to kill in 97 and 98 but not 99. An obvious stupidity but something at least two "Peer reviewed academics seem incapable of understanding.

Dr Who:

25 Oct 2013 4:06:12pm

JoeBloggs, the NHMRC is a granting agency, and does not publish peer-reviewed papers. Their "publications" are actually reviews, written internally and are not subject to the peer review process as would, say, an article submitted to one of the journals supported by CSIRO publishing or Elsevier or The Royal Society or the like (not saying that they're not typically solid info, but Coochey's claim it was the "most peer reviewed paper in Australia" is BS, as is I'd wager most of what he has said). I'm amazed you didn't pick that up.

John Coochey :

25 Oct 2013 6:40:24pm

It was reviewed by huge numbers of people from all fields your definition of what you consider peer reviewed is both tautological and nonsensical. The paper was published and then withdrawn because it claimed NHMRC endorsement. If as you say the NHMRC was simply a granting agency how was it able to withdraw the paper in 1998? I am surprised you did not pick that up!

John Coochey :

Marko:

25 Oct 2013 10:25:41am

Yes it has almost become a religion to many people.

The number of times I have been asked do I "believe" in global warming or am I a "denier".

I rarely give my skeptic view these days because people obviously switch off if you don't speak in apocalyptic terms. There is a distinct lack of critical thinking these days with most preferring the accept things on face value without question. When I point out that the climate models don't match the observed data and that that alone should give some pause for thought, I am ridiculed as a "denier".

I am comforted though in that the tide seems to have been turning over the last couple of years and more people are looking closely at the data. After all you do not have to be a scientist to see an obvious disconnect between the theory and what the observed data is telling us.

JoeBloggs:

You don't necessarily need to be a scientist to compare a theory against reported observations. But it would certainly help in order to be able to fully comprehend the underlying sciences.

Interestingly the theory predicts a continuation of the increasing abnormal acclerated rate of climate change and the observations confirm this theory.

Whether or not you believe or disbelieve what highly qualified scientists report in their peer reviewed published papers is a separate issue. After all some people continue to believe in a flat earth and/or young earth creationism despite what scientists have told them.

I am curious though Marko, what disconnet between theory and observations have you noted?

ExWarmist:

[1] Predicted tropospheric hotspot fails to appear - hence water vapour is most likely not a +ve feedback.

[2] Hadcrut4, GISS, RSS, UAH temp series all show a pause between 2000 and 2010 where 0.2 degrees of warming was predicted, and temps are still running flat.

[3] ERBE and CERES satellite measurements show increased long wave radiation escaping at the top of the atmosphere - when the models predict less.

[4] Warmist theory predicts melting at both poles - melting has only occurred in the Arctic, and this year is within 2 standard deviations of the recorded mean - and hence within the range of natural variation.

Jimmy Necktie:

25 Oct 2013 1:32:45pm

I'm starting to notice a general trend where, be it climate or population or economics, people seem to almost glee in predictions of doom. They flock to worst-case-scenarios, they get upset if a less drastic prediction comes along and refuse to listen. Disaster porn?

Idiocracy:

25 Oct 2013 3:54:38pm

"After all you do not have to be a scientist to see an obvious disconnect between the theory and what the observed data is telling us"

Acutally, you do. The climate is a highly complex system. It takes years of effort to even begin to understand it. Why do you think we still have trouble predicting weather more than five days out? Becuase the worlds climate systems are really really complicated.

Common Marko. You can't just make a throw away comment on 15 minutes of reading and say you can in any way compete with climate scientists who've devoted their lives to studying this system unless you are seriously delusional or, we'll, a bit simple yourself.

JoeBloggs:

25 Oct 2013 12:09:49pm

99% to be exact (perhaps closer to 99.999999999%).

Still those 1% remainers can be excused for their ignorance, just as we excuse those who believe in a flat earth or young earth creationist fantasies (interestingly they commonly happen to be the same people).

Terry:

The old "you disagree with me therefore you are ignorant" argument yet again.

Not a recognised tool of intelligent debate, but often used when nothing else is available.

Adds nothing so it can't very well be replied to.

I would like to say though that many "flat earthers" and creationists are extremely well read and far more informed of the relevant authorities than most of their detractors (who simply follow the crowd). That they draw conclusions from their reading and study that I and many others disagree with is not relevant to their level of knowledge, nor their intelligence. It is to do with the rigour of their analysis, the assumptions they make, the data they select and ignore and the prejudices they bring to the table.

Sound familiar?

Rather than just saying "You stupid - me smart" let us try logic and reason.

The article explains why some researchers fudge results. Given the same situation applies in other fields such as climate studies, it is not unreasonable to hypothesise that similar processes are taking place. To simply deny it is not really helpful.

CraigW:

Ok .. ok .. ok ... for a start, the basic chemistry and physics involved in the field of climate change is well established ... for over a century, in fact.

It's one of the most studied areas of science involving people of varying scientific disciplines.

The normal peer review process alone is rigorous enough ... then they review it again (and again) when preparing IPCC reports (and against similar research from other scientists).

Objective data from NASA satellites and other organisations, scientific bodies, etc. also contribute to our understanding of climate change.

The media, sceptical individuals and organisations, all pour over the scientific output looking for any possible indication there could be a flaw anywhere.

These same people / organisations publish their own "research" which is challenged, successfully, by established scientists in the field.

Finally, there is no award or prize, financial gain, or personal reward for discovering what amounts to very very bad news for the planet and the various species that inhabit it. Sure, the hate mail and death threats certainly remind scientists they are alive (for the moment); the constant ridicule and denigration by people with no experience or knowledge in the field must do wonders for the scientists ego, sense of self-worth and self-respect; and the insistence of the MSM to give denialists an undeserved equal level of legitimacy in the name of "fairness" must make all those long hours in the lab and in the field feel "worth it". But hey, other than that, being the messenger of bad news (as we all know from our own experience) has limits in terms of the joy its bestows.

How about all those people who denigrate science consider relinquishing the fruits of such endeavours ... you know, stop taking the medication that keeps your sugar levels in check, go back to drawing with your finger in the dirt rather than using a biro on paper, throw away your sunglasses and squint into the light of day instead, perhaps sit on a stump instead of a chair, gather some wild berries rather than buy them at the supermarket, kill and cut your own meat using whatever sharp rock you can find, spend a few days walking barefoot to the beach from your house (ahem, I mean cave) rather than jumping in the car ... I mean, the options are endless and let?s face it, you'll never get bored again.

Yeah, the scientific process is not perfect, but it?s the best system we have. And it?s pretty damn good at that!

ExWarmist:

25 Oct 2013 6:05:45pm

Your presuming that what passes for mainstream climate science is actually science.

For a hypothesis to be considered scientific it needs to be falsifiable - that is it must be able to make measurable predictions that if they do not occur will result in the falsification of the hypothesis.

Can you name the specific predictions - such that if they did not occur - would falsify and therefore refute the hypothesis of man made global warming.

Try - "tropospheric hot spot" for one.

Consider also the example of Lysenkoism for a "science" that has been captured by a political agenda.

Andrew Thomas:

25 Oct 2013 3:48:24pm

Terry, your comments are a common miss-conception sprouted, I suspect, by those with a vested interest in maintaining the status-quo to misguide the general populace.

The science is indeed beeing constantly challenged through the peer-review process. Climate science is no different. You can't pick and choose which areas of science you trust or don't trust. Science is just science. Either you trust the process or you do not.

What you are seeing in climate science today is much the same as the attacks on scientists that first linked smoking to cancer.

This time, however, the consequences could be far more dire. Irrespective, however, time will tell.

Mycal:

25 Oct 2013 6:18:54pm

Terry I accept climate science as a collection of hypotheses that are probably correct, if that's "belief" it's a highly qualified belief and it most certainly is not faith based. That's the difference between science and religion, maybe it's you opposition to the climate science that is a matter of belief?

SEG:

25 Oct 2013 9:59:05am

The physical and chemical principles that underpinn our understanding of the greenhouse effect are not new, are well established and well understood. Please don't use this article fuel to fan the flames of your foolish denial mentality.

Terry:

Nobody is questioning fundamental principles. Well, at least not me. (Though the stability of continents was a fundamental principle of geology until plate tectonics triumphed).

What is being questioned is data selection, assumptions, modelling and interpretation.

If you have difficulty seeing the difference, I suggest a few books on the theory of science would probably help. I also recommend "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould" in which he describes how the "science" of racial differences was established through the prejudices (sometimes latent) of the observers and investigators. Although now more than 30 years old, it is a prime example of how almost unanimous agreement was shown to be the result of data selection, assumptions etc.

Dr Who:

25 Oct 2013 4:14:11pm

"What is being questioned is data selection, assumptions, modelling and interpretation."

Which is fine if it is being done as part of the standard scientific process. However, nobody with any training in the matter seriously entertains the notion that AGW will not be detrimental if our emissions are not curtailed. I am yet to see anyone express the contrarian view to this and bring anything better than pseudoscience to the debate.

Mycal:

25 Oct 2013 6:33:32pm

I prefer the phlogiston theory myself.

I also have no doubt that are some scientific principles which I believe to be correct (on the evidence, not as an article of faith) that will turn out to be totally wrong. Some may even be climate related but I will consider it to be a good thing because such an event will mean that we have an even better explanation.

What I do not comprehend is how supposedly intelligent people can say that climate science is crap (which it may be) without advancing a better alternative theory or demonstrating the scientific argument that makes it crap? All we ever get from those opposed to climate science is cherry picking, myths, misleading nonsense and conspiracy theories and that really is crap.

John Coochey :

25 Oct 2013 12:34:34pm

As usual someone devoid of arguments or intellect resorts to ad hominum attacks. My success in having a worthless paper removed was about a paper about abortion. The issue of taking a paper at face value even if "peer reviewed" which can mean anything or nothing (remember the MMR panic and autism which was based on a peer reviewed paper) is further underlined by Nature ( a very prestigious publication, not something you buy on the newstands) publishing a paper which claimed to show homopathic medicine worked. It was published only on the proviso the experiments would be repeated and results published. One of those who did the test was a James Randi, no known qualifications in science, no known publications peer reviewed or otherwise. He is an illussionist (magician). He totally debunked the original experiment which had had a case control but the assessor had not been "blinded" meaning they new which were the test results and which were the controls. They had simply looked harder for a result in the test results rather than the control. When the tests were blinded there was no difference between the active study and the control. QED. You can do the same thing wit a ouja board, if you cover the letters and numbers with coded symbols but do not let the participants know what the y are the results are gibberish.

Forrest Gardener:

25 Oct 2013 5:40:43pm

SEG, you are right that the physical and chemical principles are well known. The problem is that climate phenomena do not operate at the same level as the better understood physical and chemical principles.

It is a phenomenon requiring new knowledge. It has been identified as such since the 1970s when I studied what was then known as Geophysical Fluid Dynamics.

ExWarmist:

Pete:

25 Oct 2013 10:55:45am

It doesn't help that the media is in cahoots with the researchers to create a story. Pick up any periodical or paper and you'll find at least one story on a 'medical breakthrough'. These articles are usually a joke: the breakthrough is hardly ever near clinical application, but they sound great. Basic science, of the kind that leads to real innovation, is a bit boring, takes years and requires consistent funding without the pressure to produce a result quickly. Unfortunately, the media, the average idiot, and consequently the unis and often researchers who get the funds, aren't that interested. The media could improve things by ignoring most of the uni PR statements - remember, most of these experiments are at very early stages and the vast majority of 'cancer cures', for instance won't ever see light of day.

Dr IH:

Andrew Thomas:

25 Oct 2013 5:12:19pm

"Basic science, of the kind that leads to real innovation, is a bit boring, takes years and requires consistent funding without the pressure to produce a result quickly"

Quite right Pete. In addition, real innovation also comes out of research quite unexpectedly. For example, the invention of Wi-Fi by the Federally funded CSIRO. Ironically, it was borne out of a failed experiment to detect exploding mini black holes. this invention has been worth millions to the CSIRO, and billions to the world wide economy. There are many more examples just like this.

Imagine if some management boffin tried to argue that the original research wasn't worth funding! It just goes to show, research is fundamental to any economy that wishes to have a future. So, for the sake of our economy, lets leave the economists to accounting, and the scientists to science.

OUB :

Stan:

25 Oct 2013 4:09:11pm

Sorry Hudson but I think you will find you are very wrong. The amount spent on so called climate research far out strips anything spent by sceptics. There are entire government and university departments set up to spend taxpayer money in attempts to prove the scare. The sceptics on the other hand are mainly self funded so dn't bring up the big oil strawman, it's wrong.

JoeBloggs:

25 Oct 2013 1:10:46pm

"the $10billion Green "Slush" Fund"

That would be the fund which was tasked to loan money on commerical terms to viable clean renewable energy projects would it not whcih would have provided a commerical rate of return to the government while increasing our nations ability to produce energy cleanly?

A little different from the current governments idea of just paying polluters to reduce emmissions, which provides no return on investment, to achieve a similar goal.

So both ideas were to reduce emmissions, but only one of them was going to not only be free for the taxpayer over time but was also going to provide a return on taxpayer funds.

Reinhard:

25 Oct 2013 12:01:23pm

I do believe we are discussing Medical Research, a completely different field of science. Yes Forrest it is a science, despite your ignorant claim that it isn't, that's why they require a science degree...

GraemeF:

25 Oct 2013 12:09:23pm

Although not perfect, it does show that peer review is an effective way of weeding out the errors.

Climate scientists have the same system but there is no equivalent of 'outing' in that field. Climate change denialists have made many accusations of fraud but when these claims have been checked it was the accusations that were fraudulent and not the papers.

Climate science has been a 'fledgling field' for over 200 years with the first experiments proving that CO2 had greenhouse properties performed in the 1750s.

Gr8Ape:

25 Oct 2013 2:14:59pm

Isn't peer review mainly concerned with the methods used to collect and treat the data. Aside from picking up any obvious contradictions with previously known and accepted results, the outcome of the experiment itself can't be judged unless the peer reviewer carries out an independent duplicate of the experiment.

This is where the hole in the process is. It relies on the integrity of the author of the paper, how highly they hold their reputation and the chances of having their results questioned.

In the end, the reasons for making fraudulent claims don't stack up. If the results are of any significance then they will eventually be exposed.

The only reason for this type of behaviour in my view is the unrealistic expectations of the sponsor.

Bulldust:

25 Oct 2013 2:26:22pm

Proper peer review is effective at weeding out problems with submitted papers. The problem in smallish fields or politicised fields (mentioning no names *COUGH* climatescience *COUGH*) is that peer review can distort into "pal review" at which point all credibility is lost.

When big grant money or industry money is involved, the incentives for distortion are greatest. Freakonomics shows copious examples of how humans pervert systems for their own gains when incentives are involved ... scientists are certainly not immune to this, and to pretend otherwise is to be naive. Which isn't to say that there aren't saintly types out there, but they don't need scrutiny and I applaud them.

I shouldn't have to quote the ClimateGate email about "redefining peer review" should I?

Stan:

25 Oct 2013 4:22:40pm

No GraemeF the fraud claims have not been independently checked only by insiders. The errors that have been found have mainly been by the sceptics (wonder when Karoly's co-authoured withdrawl will reappear)And by the way the CO2 experiments were only carried out in a closed system "test tube"

Forrest Gardener:

Andrew Thomas:

25 Oct 2013 3:35:41pm

Dear Forrest,

I completely agree with the front end of your statement. The commercialization of research and the introduciton of management style systems into acedemia threatens to seriously undermine the academic sector. The ultimate cost of this, ironically, may well be the West's economic future. To think that applying balnket business principles to all areas of society is a good idea is to risk undermining some of our most important institutions and this is a huge economic mistake. Perhaps the best example of this is the commercialization of sport and the scandals that have followed.

But I would pull you up on the "Warm alarmist" comment unless you have real evidence for your concerns. You really don't want to get this one wrong.

Mycal:

25 Oct 2013 6:02:40pm

Could not resist eh Forest, the fact is that, because of the controversies generated and orchestrated by those opposed to climate science it would the one area where peer review and replication has been applied with the most rigour.

Your assertion that "Warm alarmists would do well to consider the extent to which this issue has undermined the fledgling field of climate science." implies that climate scientists are all frauds and that the results cannot be replicated, but I notice you don't actually cite any cases?

paradise:

25 Oct 2013 8:49:30am

It's disappointing, as is life itself if we take a too rosy view. It seems that all humans are prone to exaggerate, select, promote, discard, cover-up and hope to achieve fame and reward through personal selection processes. Morality, ethicality, decency, legality are all under some threat We hope that idealism, scientific study, altruistic attitudes, etc. are above the common tendency to a self-centred approach to maximize personal and fifncial reward, but often it is not so. The economic intertwining and tangled drives within capitalism extend everywhere, corrupting, forcing instincts to accept the need to seek financial support, go for fame and fortune, win contracts, prizes, awards. It's still a jungle.

Alpo:

25 Oct 2013 8:50:21am

There are more than 100,000 scientific researchers in Australia. That 3 of them are being investigated for scientific fraud, simply means that the rate of such fraud is around 0.003%. I much prefer 0.000%, but it is clear that we humans are frail and fallible (both empirically and morally). The important thing is that such cases demonstrate that there is a mechanism of self-correction in place (no cone of silence on science as it is currently the case with the Federal Government). It is often the case that members of a team do spot mistakes, they usually refer that to the leader of the team and in the vast majority of cases the mistake is corrected. When it is blatantly and unjustifiably not, members of the team often complain officially, especially if the research being done could be potentially harmful as research into medical drugs can certainly be. Being under pressure to writing articles or to getting grants is no excuse for wishy washy science, let alone fraud, it has never been an excuse, it will never be an excuse.Research teams are certainly under great pressure these days, but if honest mistakes are made then they should be simply corrected.... Pretty simple really.

casewithscience:

25 Oct 2013 1:33:25pm

Forrest is right - medical science is one of the loosest of the scientific disciplines. It often relies on qualitative data, rather than the rigorous quantitative data used by the physical sciences. Furthermore, medical science is often not based on, nor leads to, axiomatic principles like the physical sciences. This is primarily because it is the study of a particular phenotype (humans) rather than a broad investigation into nature as a whole.

Please note that bio-med chemistry falls within the stricter disciplines as opposed to public health or, at the loosest end of it, psychiatry.

Alpo:

25 Oct 2013 5:56:14pm

"Forrest is right - medical science is one of the loosest of the scientific disciplines. It often relies on qualitative data, rather than the rigorous quantitative data used by the physical sciences.".... I haven't heard from Forrest yet, but you have got no idea whatever about medical research. Please do inform yourself, please do. "Qualitative data" rather than "quantitative data"? Go and visit any Medical Research Institute, please. Approach the NHMRC and ask them whether they fund superficial, qualitative, unscientific projects. Please do, you truly need to learn. Medical science is as "axiomatic" as biology can be (thankfully you did realise that here is something called biochemistry and also biophysics). Moreover, public health and psychiatry are as scientific as the behavioural sciences can be. Don't confuse failed theories (which abound across ALL scientific disciplines), with unscientific disciplines. Go to any psychiatry department in any University's Faculty of Medicine and talk with the researchers there, read about psychiatry. This is a field deeply rooted not only in behaviour (psychology) but also, increasingly, in neurobiology, endocrinology, immunology and genetics. I mean, I could go on and on and on.

Mycal:

25 Oct 2013 6:54:05pm

Thanks for setting us straight casewithscience, only the "physical sciences" are true sciences because only they deal with hard quantitative data". I will be sure to tell my doctor not to bother with all those tests next time I get sick, should probably cancel the x-rays and MRI scans, better stop with the vaccinations as well (no science there)

Reinhard:

25 Oct 2013 11:52:56am

"which isn't really a science anyway."Spoken like someone who has never actually met a medical researcher, or a scientist. I'm sure medical researchers would disagree with your insult , considering the time and effort it takes gaining a BSc.

Dr Dig:

25 Oct 2013 12:02:34pm

I have to disagree with you Forrest on your assertion that medical research isn't really a science.

Science is no more than a process for understanding phenomena that can be applied to any topic. I take it you believe physics and chemistry are sciences. The process is the same no matter which field of endeavour it is applied to. Some try to distinguish between hard and soft sciences but these lines become blurred as soon as they are drawn.

Oaktree:

AJC:

25 Oct 2013 9:32:34am

Just because only 3 people are caught out doesn't make it less worrying about others out there who haven't yet been caught because of the same laxity that allowed those 3 to get away with their fraud for so long. The trend should be taken seriously, not played down or given excuses for. That that get away with the fraud for such extended periods demonstrates that the 'system' is NOT working, the mechanisms are failing. The increasing deathtolls from medicines that are claimed to help, but instead hinder, should be sending alarm bells ringing everywhere, but the medical establishment being so cosy with the money of pharmaceutical corporations have tried just as hard to ignore the evidence. They play it down just as you attempt to do, brushing it off with the same lame excuses and same spin. It's extremely simple to see it.

Alpo:

25 Oct 2013 11:07:56am

I agree that the number is likely to be larger than 3. I agree that this is a serious matter due to the potential consequences for patients. I agree that the relationship between medicine and industrial interests (not just pharmaceutical ones) should be kept under close scrutiny. But I am against wholesale demonising of the whole of medical research. The harder governments and the law strike against wrongdoers the stronger the message will be for everybody else. But the value of medical research is there for all to see. Western medicine can be perfected of course, but if you have something else to replace it with, I would love to know.

Whayne:

25 Oct 2013 11:48:28am

Alpo, I sincerely hope you aren't a statistician. Can you give us the margin of error, and the mean for you data? I guess you subscribe to the view Politicians caught rorting the system should just pay it back and we just move on, no further questions asked!

Alpo:

25 Oct 2013 1:39:39pm

Hi Whayne, there is no error in the measurement. We know how many scientific researchers there are in Australia (you can count all of them, no need to estimate the number by randomly sampling the Australian population), we know how many of them are being investigated. You divide both values and get the frequency. As for the medical researchers, politicians caught rorting the system should be prosecuted and jailed if need be. This doesn't mean that we get rid of all politicians (how do you suggest to run the country democratically but effectively without a legislative assembly and an executive?), as it doesn't mean that we get rid of medical research (how do you suggest to find cures for diseases?).

Alpo:

25 Oct 2013 1:49:34pm

Steve, science is not a perfectly engineered machine that can self-correct without errors. Science is a human endeavour and therefore it is subject to the limitations of our human condition, no matter how clear and precise the scientific method is (for those with philosophical inclinations see Popper's distinction between "falsifiability" and "falsification"). BUT it does have both the technical and social safeguards to make it a reasonably self-correcting endeavour. Still I would certainly agree that science (as anything else in a Democratic society) should be open for public scrutiny. A good scientist has nothing to hide.----------------------------------------------------------------------PS. I will leave the complex links between science and industry/business for another occasion.

RED SCARE:

Alpo believes that the solution is in government crackdown on wrong-doers and cheaters.

But how can the government do that unless the best researchers and the best specialists actually work for the government regulatory bodies?

Whenever you have business principles creeping in in evaluation of research, and whenever you have the highest leadership of the university adopting a business model a business mindset ? the fraud and deception, the ambition and self-promotion are inevitable.

Alpo also believes that ?the value of the medical research is there for all to see?.

Another indication that he doesn?t understand the costs and consequences involved both to the patients, and to the environment. I doubt that he even understands the opportunity cost of research when reviewing the role of funds invested in a particular line of research.

Esteban:

25 Oct 2013 1:24:11pm

"In another review, scientists at the pharmaceutical company Bayer looked back at 67 scientific projects, covering the majority of Bayer's work in oncology, women's health and cardiovascular medicine over the past four years. Of these, they found results from internal experiments matched up with the published findings in only 14 projects, but were highly inconsistent in 43 (in a further 10 projects, claims were rated as mostly reproducible, partially reproducible or not applicable"

Alpo:

25 Oct 2013 6:09:56pm

Esteban, inconsistency in the results of experiments can be due to many factors: uncontrolled variables, design, materials used, and so forth. An experiment run under certain conditions may produce different results if run under different conditions. When trying to understand the output of scientific research it is absolutely essential that you proceed... scientifically. It is usually the case that when somebody claims to have made an important discovery but replications fail, the original investigator is invited to the other labs to clearly show what de heck he did. If replications continue to fail that scientist is ready for retirement. There have been a few cases like that that I know of.

RED SCARE:

Alpo believes that the solution is in government crackdown on wrong-doers and cheaters.

But how can the government do that unless the best researchers and the best specialists actually work for the government regulatory bodies?

It shows you a person who has probably never done any research at university. Nor, does he understand the socio-economic processes that drive Australian universities to produce results that the business people, who basically run them, approve of.

Whenever you have business principles creeping in in evaluation of research, and whenever you have the highest leadership of the university adopting a business model a business mindset ? the fraud and deception, the ambition and self-promotion are inevitable.

Alpo also believes that ?the value of the medical research is there for all to see?.

Another indication that he doesn?t understand the costs and consequences involved, both to the patients, and to the environment. I doubt that he even understands the opportunity cost of research when reviewing the role of funds invested in a particular line of research.

Alpo:

25 Oct 2013 6:28:04pm

WRONG on so many fronts:a) Universities and Government-funded Research Institutes attract the majority of the best researchers in this country.b) I have more than 50 publications in scientific internationals journals and 4 books (writing a fifth right now). These contain the results of my research and also reviews and synthesis of the research of others.c) There has been a trend towards favouring industry/applied research, but there is still space for basic research, including in the ARC and some private funding agencies.d) Fraud and deception are not confined to business, although I always keep a very close eye to research funded by institutions with specific commercial interests.e) Some lines of research are more expensive than others, but they may be funded nonetheless according to the usefulness of the expected outcomes. If your line of research is useless and you are a crappy researcher, don't blame "the system" if your application for funds is rejected at the first turn.f) Next time you feel ill don't go to hospital (where the scientifically trained doctors are) and instead ask to see a Witch Doctor. If you survive the ordeal, come back and apologise to Alpo for all the nonsense you have written.

Mycal:

25 Oct 2013 6:45:22pm

Alpo, overseas experience tells us that it is likely to be more than 3 in 100,000. I also suspect that the distribution of fraudsters, psychopaths and cheats is no different amongst researchers than it is in the general population. Your .003% is but the tip of the iceberg. Perhaps we could apply an ethics test to people wanting to start a career in research or perhaps we could just accept the facts of human nature and improve the peer review process.

John Coochey :

25 Oct 2013 2:12:02pm

Is that the same Readfearn who got a really good kicking from Christopher Monckton during a debate in Brisbane where Readfearn's own employer the Courier Mail headlined it "Monckton takes Brisbane" after which Readfearn resigned?

Cherna:

25 Oct 2013 2:22:34pm

@ Dave, @ ReinhardYou've missed the point.

Scientists who look for employment/income/handouts on both sides of the debate are equally despicable for peddling falsehoods if they derive income by exploiting the "scientist" label when it comes to arguing their extremist views as being fact in the debate about climate change.

OUB :

25 Oct 2013 3:10:25pm

Even in my straitened circumstances $US1550 isn't big money Reinhard. You could perhaps bath in it if you cashed the cheque in 5c pieces but you wouldn't reach all the personal places. I suspect they do it for love.

Gigantor:

The obvious answer to why, is the pressure and necessity of the researchers to secure grant funding. Most jobs in this industry have short term contracts due to the cyclical nature of funding.

For me, with an honours degree in applied science (biotechnology), I was never offered more than an 18 month contract. My colleagues who wrote the grants felt constant pressure to write and secure more funding both for themselves to have an income and also for other colleagues in their research team such as myself. Grant funding at the moment is almost entirely linked to previous success with journal papers. This makes it even more important to constantly publish and get you impact factor higher etc. For me, the pressure was not in making up data or fraud, it came from being pushed by a supervisor to bypass things such as proper ethics approval for animal experimentation and to work with GM materials we were not licensed for but this is merely another side of the same story.

A commonly heard mantra in every research lab I have ever worked in is "publish or perish". With the necessity to publish directly linked to entire research team's personal incomes, is anyone surprised that this sort of incident occurs?

I should point out however, that at least due to the self-correcting nature of science, these issues will eventually come to light and be retracted. If only the alt med crowd would be so cooperative when their "research" is found to be either made up or flawed beyond recognition...

Orion:

25 Oct 2013 11:09:45am

What Gigantor says is true, but it goes even further than just grant funding. In medical science, and probably in other fields as well, your career prospects, academic promotion, reputation etc is all dependent primarily on your record of publishing in "high impact" journals. Peer review is better than none but is far from infallible, as anyone in the field knows, how your paper is received often depends on who you are (or if you are junior who the senior author is) rather than what you know or what you have found. Anything unreplicated independently has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Gigantor:

25 Oct 2013 1:34:51pm

There is a distinction to be made however between teaching academics and those who do some combination of teaching and research. The trend is also moving towards all teaching academics being "research active" - meaning that they too will be beholden to grants for their continued employment as a teaching academic. This became mandatory at one institution I worked at forcing out some outstanding teachers with up to forty years experience in their field as they did not hold a grant and had no post-grad students.

Unfortunately for everyone else, be they post-doc researcher, reseach assistant or a technician like myself, they are completely reliant on their boss winning grant money.

Aussie Autra:

25 Oct 2013 11:22:57am

Except that there really are not so many. The pressure to publish means constantly publishing something "new". It is more and more difficult for researchers to have their work published at all if they are simply replicating the work of others. With the pressure on to have something recently published at any given time, this means the safeguard of replication is going down the drain, while more and more research is tampered with to give paying corporate customers the outcomes that suits their business needs.

Jennifer:

25 Oct 2013 4:29:33pm

Agreed Aussie Extra.

Back in the "good ole days", when I first went to University, we were told not to take the results of a study too seriously unless it had been replicated. Otherwise Type 1 errors would tend to be published and left to stand.

These days it's rare for any study to be fully replicated. And we don't see null results published either.

The bias of journals towards positive, new and exciting results is part of the problem.

The various funding issues are another.

Kudos to Bayer for their admission. Not often we hear something frank and detrimental from a drug company.

asda:

Heretic:

25 Oct 2013 9:57:43am

Fraudulent research and publication bias in the medical world has been know for a while. Many medical and research professionals aren't happy about that but are afraid to speak out, fearing loss of promotions or their jobs.

Some statistics from the medical literature: "...only 15% of medical interventions are supported by solid scientific evidence...(and)...only 1% of the articles in medical journals are scientifically sound...many treatments have never been assessed at all..." (Smith R. Where is the wisdom...? The poverty of medical evidence. Editorial. British Medical J 1991;303(Oct 5):798-799 )

This suggests that 99% of published trials, or at least the reporting of them - cannot be relied on.

??only 5% of published papers reach minimum standards of scientific soundness and clinical relevance?? and that ??in most (medical) journals the figure is less than 1%?. (O?Donnell M. Evidenced-based illiteracy: Time to rescue ?The Literature?. The Lancet 2000;335:489-491).

Jim:

25 Oct 2013 10:02:28am

So much concern for fudging medical research to get grants and get published. But the rusted on leftie luvvies pretend this doesn't happen with climate science and everything the warmies publish is undisputed fact. Even when Climategate exposed so-called scientists manipulating the data it was glossed over.

Realist:

In other words, a complete whitewash. The leaked emails reveal they were manipulating data to prove their position. It was proven that they used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in temperatures.

Follow the money. If you are a climate scientist and you don?t tow the line there are no fgrants and no tenure. It's called directed science - "Here's the conclusion, now verify it. There's a $100,000 research grant riding on it."

Being a skeptic is a good thing. They are not deniers. They simply want to see the proof with non-falsified, fudged, selective or misleading adjustments of the data.

Even NASA now admits that CO2 cools the atmosphere (http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/).

ThatFlemingGent:

25 Oct 2013 4:26:08pm

Spare us this intelligence-insulting cavalcade of cretinism from the climate denialists trying so desperately to tie this to climate science when there is absolutely ZERO correlation between the two - outside of the minds of idiots who use terms like "rusted on leftie luvvies" to describe people who may actually have some cognitive function.

I'd mention the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy but I have grave suspicions that Jim wouldn't understand it anyway, even though his is a textbook example.

Going back to the actual article - I think it's a given that those fudging the research should (and likely will) suffer damage to their reputations for doing so; difficulty getting funding isn't an excuse to cook the books, per se and does the field a disservice.

Eva:

25 Oct 2013 10:03:06am

Sad but true. Several years ago I took part in a trial of a new auto immune drug.

Out of 20 people I was told at the time I was the only person to have any adverse events. They were in dangerous (to me) denial would not believe I was in trouble and it definitely was NOT this new drug as the cause. The medico in charge became hostile to get rid of me. He had yearly 'research trips' (free junkets) via ?SPEN' to conference, boxes of red wine at Xmas, holidays/?onferences to the golfing country club with wife/kids.

I went to another large hospital ... they found it was that drug, I nearly died and lost a lung. No compensation as law here is too hard to challenge for this and medical errors. Should be to put a stop to this caper and those injured.

There is NO care for the patients ...just the Quest for the almighty Buck $$$$.

Drug companies do their own research without any checks or balances from another body.

Heretic:

25 Oct 2013 12:11:37pm

Eva,

The trouble is the financing of research; where the companies who are seeking to market a product also produce or finance the research there will always be pressure on the researchers paid by that company to come up with favourable research. Hence the tendency to fudge data.

Did anyone see Catalyst last night? The story was about the great cholesterol myth and the notion that cholesterol is bad for us.

Part 2 next week will be about the world's biggest money spinner: cholesterol lowering drugs. You see, first you invent a disease (high cholesterol being bad and this is caused by saturated fats), then you sell the lucrative drug.

JoeBloggs:

It reminds me of Listerine which was invented in the nineteenth century as powerful surgical antiseptic.

It was later sold, in distilled form, as both a floor cleaner and a cure for gonorrhea.

But it wasn't a runaway success until the 1920s, when it was pitched as a solution for "chronic halitosis", a then obscure medical term for bad breath.

Listerine's new ads featured forlorn young women and men, eager for marriage but turned off by their mate's rotten breath. "Can I be happy with him in spite of that?" one maiden asked herself. Until that time, bad breath was not conventionally considered such a catastrophe. But Listerine changed that.

As the advertising scholar James B. Twitchell writes, "Listerine did not make mouthwash as much as it made halitosis."

In just seven years, the company's revenues rose from $115,000 to more than $8 million.

din:

Having an adverse reaction in a trial is not medical error. Getting ignored when you get sick on a trial is.

as for drug companies doing their own research without any checks or balances, i find that hard to believe.

Maybe you should visit the PBS website- They post results of drug trials. Sure the results are in a format that only a trained expert would understand them, but the drugs are being tested, the results are published in an open forum, and another body is getting the final say if these drugs can be used here, and who pays for them.

GreyZeke:

Tom Martyr:

25 Oct 2013 10:22:52am

The worrying trend could well have something to do with Research funding into our globally recognised sciences being cut by a third since Rudd initially took office and continuing through to Tony who pre election quietly released another planned 14% cut. A science degree is quickly becoming the equivellent of an arts and literature degree. Interesting learning but completely pointless.

Please drop the whole Climate change tangent on this serious issue, it's played out and this should be taken seriously. Medical research alone needs a big boost since we are coming to the end of antibiotic effectiveness. We're about to be wizzed back to the days of leeches to cure colds (not literally) and all people can wag on about is their opinion on climate change.

It's a lot like mining companies, the research teams gather some meager dosh together to investigate an area of interest. Through no fault of their own if that area is bare and findings are unremarkable it may mean many years before you can afford another turn at investigating a theory. The only hope is then to fudge a few numbers to hopefully get a grant and extend the process long enough to jag something tangible. Ethics tend to get mothballed when you have starving scientists who just want to discover but are hamstrung by politics and ecconomics.

OUB :

25 Oct 2013 4:01:50pm

I don't think any degree is a waste of time, they should all teach skills such as critical thinking. Science must give graduates a lot more alternatives. Finance if people are desperate, I know one graduate who went into financial planning and has gone on from there. I'm sure a lot of people are working on new antibiotics. I think some local companies even obtain grants from US Defence on what sounds like fairly generous terms. The two I can think of don't concentrate on the area but it is a continuing avenue of research for them. Biotechs seem to have a much tougher time than miners in fundraising. It must be very dispiriting for people with strong scientific credentials and patents to have to continually do the rounds of brokers to raise new lines of funding. The process can take up to ten years for successful biotechs - they come to the markets in Australia at an earlier stage than junior miners do and the process is longer. A few of them try to game the system but I don't think there would be very many. Better to be born not quite so talented I think. Just the same for the lucky few the payoffs can be rewarding monetarily and there must be great satisfaction in discovery and commercialisation.

OntheRun:

25 Oct 2013 10:37:54am

Its quite easyFirstly, most articles in journals stop there. They are not cited by other articles in journalsSecond, its a grubby competition for limited fundsThridly, those checking probably know less on the topic and therefor trust is neededFourthly, general institutional incompetence when following government procedure.

Dr Dig:

25 Oct 2013 10:39:46am

The title of your article is appropriate Sophie. There will always be rogues in all areas of endeavour but it is primarily the pressure to publish or perish which leads to misconduct. This is not isolated to medical researchers either as it extends through all areas. The pressure to publish and attract high impact articles is also felt by the publication houses as well.

How to alleviate this issue is a difficult one as it is at the core of the business models in contemporary universities to tie tenure to outputs rather than inputs and activity. I don't know that the business models are wrong either, but think a more balanced performance measurement system and a willingness to fund and publish replication studies would go part the way to reducing the prevalence of misconduct. Replication studies are frowned upon by the funding bodies and publication houses, yet theoretically they are the cornerstone of valid research.

cowboy:

Serenity:

25 Oct 2013 4:57:38pm

There's a bit of difference between making up a few things in a science paper for medicine where it can be very difficult to check the authenticity, whereas climate science has been correct for a few decades now.

I've just read about a problem with the IPCC 5: it's already out of date.Great article by the editors of American Science magazine.For example: a study published last November about Arctic permafrost thawing quicker than first thought won't be included, nor updated computer models done this year won't be included.

This is a bit worrying since the current report will be released in four parts between now and October 2014.

R.Ambrose Raven:

25 Oct 2013 11:27:17am

It isn't a new issue.

Thalidomide campaigners argue that the thalidomide tragedy is an example of the habitual dishonesty of the pharmaceutical industry. Animal tests carried out by its inventor, the West German pharmaceutical company Chemie Gr?nenthal, were very superficial and incomplete, and their clinical trials were hastily done and questionable.

Contrast that with FDA inspector Frances Kelsey, who prevented the drug's approval within the United States despite pressure from the pharmaceutical company and FDA supervisors. Kelsey felt the application for thalidomide contained incomplete and insufficient data on its safety and effectiveness, a lack of data indicating whether the drug could cross the placenta, and that there were not any results available from U.S. clinical trials of the drug.

At the time, clinical trials did not require FDA approval, nor were they subject to oversight. The "clinical trials" of thalidomide involved distributing more than two and a half million tablets of thalidomide to approximately 20,000 patients across the nation, but few doctors tracked their patients after dispensing Thalidomide.

But it emphasises that government, and society, are not businesses. Deregulation was part of an enormous propaganda effort to commodify everything. This is but one result.

OUB :

25 Oct 2013 4:24:21pm

Ironically the medico that did much to alert the world to the dangers of thalidomide was later done for fudging his research on another project. I don't query your post but sometimes the regulators seem to go overboard and make ego-driven decisions. The process isn't without its flaws.

Hudson Godfrey:

25 Oct 2013 11:29:59am

I think we have to take any finding of misrepresentation seriously but I also suspect that it needs to be broken down further to demystify the nature of the risks involved in say undue optimism when seeking to fund research as opposed to the ability to market an unsuitable drug.

If we just ignore those perspectives then what I see occurring is this phenomenon whereby armchair experts with just enough time on their hands to cherry pick factoids to suit their bias but no serious dedication to doing any real fact finding of their own are presenting all kinds of skewed perspectives of science.

People should remember that for all its faults science deals with facts that can be falsified with evidence so the question isn't whether scientists being people prone to ordinary human foibles might like to cheat from time to time or even just get caught up in their own confirmation bias. The questions are what kinds of things are they cheating about, what systems are in place to prevent cheating, and how do we better ensure scientists are appropriately motivated.

It concerns me therefore that articles like this that tend to give scientists a bad name may strike more deeply at the already heavily scrutinised and cash strapped public sector. Yet they miss their mark when it comes to oversight within corporate science ranks where things like patent systems even the choices made about what receives the bulk of funding are as often as not defended by free market apologists.

When it comes to contrasts like those then questions of science in the public interest are brought to the fore in a way that begs the question why the public purse isn't prepared to invest more in ensuring that research and those interests aren't unethically sequestered for the profit and benefit of the few.

JohnM:

25 Oct 2013 11:41:51am

The problem isn't confined to medicine. David Karoly and co submitted a very dodgy paper to a climate journal early this year or late last. The journal gave it the thumbs up and was going to publish but when the pre-publication media statements appeared the flawed were quickly identified by the blogosphere and the paper withdrawn.

Why are these things happening? There's several reasons, some of which are

1 - PhD students must write a paper and there's more students now, which means more work for reviewers who probably have no time to replicate studies even if they had the facilities.

2 - Very few papers these days attempt to refute or even simply confirm another paper; findings must be of Earth shattering significance to get media attention so the reports can be waved at potential employers.

3 - With more graduates and more people seeking jobs there's greater pressure on people to succeed, so greater pressure to cut corners.

4 - Research can be very expensive and time-consuming. If something fails there's the choice of trying to get the money and time to do it again or fudge a few figures to what they "should have been" and pretend everything went okay.

JoeBloggs:

25 Oct 2013 1:06:35pm

The paper "Gergis, J., Neukom, R., Phipps, S.J., Gallant, A., Karoly, D.J. and PAGES Aus2K project members. Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium. Journal of Climate" was initially published online around June 2012 and is currently in revision (note not retracted).

David Karoly made the following public statement:

"An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, which may affect the results. While the paper states that ?both proxy climate and instrumental data were linearly detrended over the 1921?1990 period?, we discovered on Tuesday 5 June that the records used in the final analysis were not detrended for proxy selection, making this statement incorrect. Although this is an unfortunate data processing issue, it is likely to have implications for the results reported in the study. The journal has been contacted and the publication of the study has been put on hold.

This is a normal part of science. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens the conclusions. In this study, an issue has been identified and the results are being re-checked."

What is particularly interesting about this is that it is the first reported case of 'premature' publishing (due to an unfortunate data processing issue relating to a component of the data) relating to climate sciences. Which, considering the volume of published papers, it pretty good really.

Joe Blow:

25 Oct 2013 11:45:45am

Multiple reasons including:

* Strong push for University researchers to derive funding from industry as grant funding dries up (note that 2 of these cases involve pharmaceutical products);* Strong pressure for productivity (track record - in numbers of papers and prestige of journals, not necessarily quality of research - is the primary route to successful funding)* The ease of fraud in terms of complex image manipulation software (photoshop - beats me why fraudsters don't just make up "fake samples" which wouldn't be detected nearly as easily - I assume most fraud is kind of "last minute" to get around reviewer's objections);* Ease of detection of fraud nowadays, with massive internet searching capable of detecting duplicated images, verify that they are in fact manipulated (not just "kind of similar"). * Declining tenured positions, everyone is on short term contracts so getting the next 3 year position is always just around the corner.

The whole system is under massive pressure - fraud is just a wholly expected outcome of this situation. It's like asking "why do our doctors make medication errors?". More pressure means more problems. A no brainer really. Some people give in to the temptation, most people don't. It's totally stupid for the fraudsters and just ruins their lives - but you know how, with humans, short term gains outweigh long term pain!

JohnM:

RobP:

25 Oct 2013 12:01:11pm

Catalyst last night had an interesting expose of the cause of heart attack. That the main causes were likely to be stress rather than saturated fats like those found in butter and that, in fact, the replacement (margarine) contains much worse substances like trans fats. It felt like there was a breath of fresh air on the subject.

Big companies and their sycophants have a lot to answer for for the promotion of these products. Expose the BS to the harsh light of day and destroy these people/companies and their products.

Heretic:

25 Oct 2013 3:07:13pm

The program also pointed to sugar and refined carbohydrate-based diets (pasta, bread, pizza, biscuits, big-brand cereals, etc.) as being the culprit, since these drive up insulin which is highly inflammatory and damages the arteries....

Note also that arterial plaque contains high levels of calcium and corporate interests constantly pushing the idea we (adults) need more calcium - code for dairy products - supposedly to strengthen our bones.

Angurugu:

25 Oct 2013 12:05:50pm

I have been working in and around universities for about 15 years now and one and in all that time i have never seen a supervisor check the original data ( ie lab books) before publishing a paper. So with a habit of trusting data to be true and real and not checking it is no wonder that these type of "mistakes" happen.

I contrast this with a job I had in a small start up company were I prepared a number of patents with a large amount of experiments incorporated in them. I had my research team prepare a spreadsheet that has a lab book reference for all the data we put in the patent. Why did i do this? Simple, it is highly probable that one day these patents will be challenged in a court of law and evidence will be demanded that the claims made int he patent are true.

So I think that part of of the solution to this problem is to mandate the checking of all published data prior to publication. I observe that academics/researchers are busy so the tendency is to trust and not check as it takes time and effort. So for this reason i think there is a need for a regulatory regime to be imposed by journals. In most journals now you need to attribute who has contributed what to a publication . Perhaps this should go further with authors required to sign a declaration that have sighted and check the original data. If they then don't take the time to do this and something is wrong their reputation will be on the line. Right now we have a situation where people publish now assuming all is right safe in the knowledge they can just say sorry later with little consequence

Joe Blow:

25 Oct 2013 3:55:27pm

Look, that sounds very plausible, and is a good idea at the level of lab policy but it won't work as an institutional "system" where it will inevitably become bloated, ineffective and dysfunctional. The last thing we need is ANOTHER heavy handed regulatory regime imposed on us. The reality is that plenty of checking on the original data gets done in my experience.

Lab books are already scrutinised by another person and signed off, but if you were determined to make fraudulent experiments, checking the lab books would not detect it. When you check someone's lab book you assume that they did what they wrote in the book - how else could you tell? Video every minute of their day? Spend YOUR day checking THEIR day? If I wanted to commit fraud, I doubt it would be hard to find the loopholes in your proposed checking system - remember, fraud is deliberate, planned. I think someone noted that the incidence of fraud is a fraction of a percent - now while fraud is bad in its effects, this "cure" would be worse than the disease.

Thinking about ways to reduce fraud is excellent as long as the proposed solutions don't do even more damage in the process. But as I previously noted, fraudsters almost always end up self-destructing because important results are replicated by others and it just gets harder and harder to live the lie.

MJLC:

25 Oct 2013 12:11:34pm

As far as research papers into research go, the article could do with a rewrite.

The question posed is "Why?" - a search for motivation. The subjects are human beings, subjects about which a great deal of literature (much of it non-scientific, and compiled over a period of centuries) exists, and subjects for which any researcher has the enviable advantage of having their own personal experience to help guide them. Put all together, I'd say there was a solid chance the motivating factor for any misconduct will be found from one of the four that make up about 99 per-cent of the rationale behind why any human does anything - sex, money, power, and/or ego (and all possible permutations thereof). A comparative study with the occurrence of research fraud in an area (as an example) like the geological research sub-branch of metamorphic rock formation and distribution should help confirm this.

And, whilst not wishing to deny or defend any result fiddling that may be going on, it's perhaps also worthwhile mentioning that "medical research" has probably reached that point where the general collides with the specific, and there are seven billion "specifics" that make dealing in the general an increasingly fraught task. At core, this comes down to humans being unable (thank God) to actually comprehend the Gattaca book of instructions they contain - instructions which, by definition, can't be all that complicated to understand because things without brains can read them easily and do what is required by the text on call with no problem. Medical research, by comparison, is a very primitive exercise where people with the benefit of brains (because, it must be said, things without brains built brains for them) attempt to uncover what things at a cellular level are doing (without the benefit of their own brain) to seemingly outwit them. If viewed in this way, "medical research" may actually benefit from a little less idolatry, a tad more humility, and a better sense of the ridiculous.

MJLC:

25 Oct 2013 6:22:41pm

Even bland and insular people have sex Dave - the trick (as you've obviously worked out) is to ensure they only get to do it amongst themselves. And actually, in the vernacular, you got somewhat screwed by the whole experience, so strictly speaking I'm still right.

Having worked for a (short) time in minerals research many moons ago (in a land far, far away), I give your former colleague full marks for generalised descriptive accuracy, despite not knowing the specific circumstances.

Alpo:

25 Oct 2013 3:01:52pm

Maynard, it depends what did they mean by "could not be replicated". BTW, 90% sounds frankly well over the top.There are many reasons why perfect replication may some times not occur:a) Differences in the methodological procedures.b) Uncontrolled effects of additional variables.c) Variability in the materials used.d) Sample size effects.e) Mistakes.f) Or the initial work was plainly and simply wrong.All that is to be expected. The real worries usually arise only when the results of an experiment just cannot be replicated by many independent research teams, following best procedures, etc. Then it is more parsimonious to conclude that the initial work was actually flawed (alternative (f)), especially if the rest produce similar results among themselves, that are however different from the original... etc. etc. I very strongly doubt that those cases are 90% of all published scientific research!!!!!

Joe Blow:

Applaudanum:

25 Oct 2013 4:52:23pm

Statistical measurements and reports in the humanities can't be replicated because different respondents will give different results. Even if you surveyed the exact same respondents, you can't guarantee they'll have the same attitudes/responses as they did when they first took your survey.

As for Humanities theoretical reports, there was that Sokal/Bricmot affair where two scientists submitted a paper that they later claimed to be nonsense yet it was passed through the usual channels of Peer Review because, presumably, noone wanted to appear stupid enough to question it.

ardy:

Very true Sophie:- "Dr Fang told the New York Times in April 2012, that "the scramble to publish in high impact journals may be leading to more and more errors".

"And the peer review process for identifying anomalies in research before it is published is clearly failing." end quote....

Yet we must believe the climate change scientists, as they are above the temptations of others scientists. Here I make a large factually lacking assumption.

Scientists have been caught trying to plaster over their research many times in the past and the medical science is not the only one.

In a world where success is rare and research is plentiful there are many reasons to portray what you are positing in the most favourable light. Then there are rewards, media attention, full time postings to major universities, and front page publishing of your thoughts and ideas.

nobody:

25 Oct 2013 12:30:08pm

This is my experience in research, at a respected university.

Selected researchers are given senior positions without any facilities, equipment, or infrastructure to conduct research. They then pick and chose who they give research topics to, (not even based on ability of marks) and then pick and chose who they give supervision and access to equipment to carry out research (again, not based on ability or marks, but even on things like whether or not you wish to play sport on weekends). Coursework that supports a topic is an optional extra.

If you then notify authorities who are supposed to supervise such things about this, you are told 'it was a difficult time, there was a lack of funding and resources, our hands were tied, please come back and try again". There is little to no supervision of what anyone is doing, and therefore one can be sure that data and results are also not being properly supervised.

Incidentally, this example is from a university that decided to introduce a change to more environmental-based research programs, within a department that was not formerly largely environmentally focused. There was no management or supervision of this priority change to environmentally- based research, whatsoever. It doesn't engender confidence in the outcomes.

Ted:

25 Oct 2013 12:31:30pm

I wonder how many problems arise as we do not teach the philosophy of science and science's history in a condensed form to all who wish to practice. Confirmation bias is a powerful psychological reality, as is theory induced blindness.As others have already commented, the system to obtain grants also puts temptation out there for some.

How it really works...:

25 Oct 2013 12:38:32pm

From the article: "People take for granted what they see published," John Ioannidis, an expert on data reproducibility at Stanford University School of Medicine in Palo Alto, California wrote in Nature in Sep 2011. "But this and other studies are raising deep questions about whether we can really believe the literature, or whether we have to go back and do everything on our own."

Say what? The first thing we teach undergraduate and honours students as they get introduced to reading research papers is that they view everything skeptically. It comes as a shock to many students that they cannot 'believe' things that are published. But science of any kind is not about believing the words of others, peer reviewed or otherwise. It is not a collection of established facts. It is about constantly critically reviewing the evidence that you read and produce yourself experimentally. Further, most strong departments run a regular 'journal club' where staff and students meet to discuss research publications. These do not exist to simply praise the work, but dissect papers in detail taking apart methods and analyses. They teach and maintain a culture where even the most high profile papers and scientists are subjected to harsh scrutiny.

Does this mean that all medical scientists behave in this way, or subject their own research to the same scrutiny? Unfortunately not. I would agree that taking some of the intense pressure out of research and research teaching would give more time to create good environments where fraud is less likely. Globally and especially in Australia what we are seeing is the opposite, with declining funding for both activities and I would argue that it is the teaching of good research practice that has suffered the most. Such teaching cannot be done by with the simple fix of providing courses in research ethics (though these are important), it requires research leaders and groups to have the time to teach in the context of the research that is being done.

Finally, it is very important to point out the vast difference between the existence of individual poor quality research and fraud, which rarely stands the test of time, and accusations of widespread collusion spanning decades in any field.

Ozchucky:

25 Oct 2013 12:44:19pm

Thank you for this article Sophie,I agree that we need an independent body to examine allegations of scientific fraud.The existence of such an independent organisation would be a strong factor in dissuading people from contemplating any form of scientific dishonesty.

An independent scientific review board should not only investigate allegations of scientific misconduct, but also run random audits from time to time. Their findings should always be made public.

An Australian independent scientific review board could engage with equivalent organisations overseas, and vice versa, to improve the scope and quality of the service worldwide.

Without an independent scientific review board, whistleblowers are exposed to persecution, and scientific institutions will be tempted to cover up their messes in case reputations and funding are jeopardized.

Len Heggarty:

25 Oct 2013 1:34:44pm

Sophie,Why must we have some soft-soap and get up in a lather when the hard core of the apple may be not that appealing in that the Universities are underfunded.When corners are cut and when outcomes are not what they seem, and it seems very unseemly in outcomes then the process could be more about saving money than making a "wow factor" new discovery.

Dr IH:

25 Oct 2013 2:59:21pm

If you want to see some bad medical science check ou Australia's position on Lymes Disease.USA people are calling for a Senate hearing on their bad science, and of course Australia is following the US.

Skeptic:

25 Oct 2013 5:12:34pm

And this is why evidence-based medicine/treatment is not really evidence based, which begs the question ... what is the real agenda of 'Fear in Science and Medicine, sorry Friends of Science in medicine???

skeptic:

25 Oct 2013 5:54:26pm

With the advance of imagery software, I guess it is not that difficult to "cook" the results a bit.

Limited amount of funds

It is not hard to see that there is only a limited amount of funds available for research. I believe also that one's share of the pie is directly related to the degree of success one achieved. On top of that, there is the reward of "bragging rights", promotion, substantial financial rewards if head-hunted by a rich private company, etc.

Scientific researchers are no different to any other human beings. They crave for recognitions, financial riches, and above all, to have their names etched forever in history.

Frauds

So the public may have been had. If we are to take a few steps back, and look at what had happened for the last 6 or so years, specifically during and after the GFC. How much money was wasted, conned, robbed by unscrupulous financial thieves? Billions? Trillions? Who knows. Now compare that to the accused amounts, and the percentage of the alleged frauds.

There is a fundamental difference between the financial and the scientific/medical frauds. The latter involved human lives and, most importantly, hopes. The former is mostly piles of invisible money floating around in cyber space. Unfortunately, its impacts are very substantial. Nations nearly collapsed, people lost homes. jobs, even lives.

I want to remind you of a fraud many years ago. It was about a claim scientific breakthrough in Fusion Energy. There were two jokers who made outlandish claims that they managed to produce measurable amount of energy by Cold Atomic Fusion. Funny enough, many learned people believed them, but it was proven to be just two idiots trying to make name for themselves.

Predictably, there are some wise people now associate these alleged frauds with Climate Change scientists. I guess once you had made up you mind, no amount of evidence or persuasions will shift that position.

Mycal:

25 Oct 2013 5:56:26pm

The latest area of science under international scrutiny for faking results is neuroscience. Apparently a significant percentage have proven to somewhat erroneous. One case (quoted in the New Scientist) involved a dead - very dead, not just resting- salmon showing neural activity when calibrating an MRI machine. But the very best one was that neural patterns of "conservatives" and "progressives" were substantially different, apparently less of the creative/cognitive zones (whatever they are) are engaged by conservatives when dealing with problems. (I don't buy it either)

The most disturbing aspect of this issue is that these "scientific results" become widely used in many different spheres of activity, including being presented as evidence in court cases or as therapeutic regimes when dealing with illness and disease.

ursus augustus:

25 Oct 2013 6:02:05pm

"The medical research community has uncovered a worrying trend: why are large numbers of medical researchers apparently misrepresenting their findings? "

The MEDICAL Community? What about the CLIMATE community FFS? If the doctors can do it why not the climate insiders? The credit and credibility of climate scientists and climate change oriented organisations is at the very core of the climate skeptics concerns.

Catayst did an excellent show on the demonisation of chloresterol last night. Whan are they going to do one on the same trteatment of the life enabling element carbon?

OUB :

25 Oct 2013 6:35:40pm

Interesting thanks Sophie. I am reluctant to be too cynical due to my lack of exposure to science and academia. I confess though that the words 'tip', 'iceberg', 'conflict', 'interest' and 'culture' were hard to suppress as I read through your piece.

Is it unfair to suggest only repeat offenders are likely to attract the attention in the media? There must be a strong temptation for universities and other research bodies to tidy away such messiness for fear of endangering current funding, future funding and to avoid scaring off new talent by becoming a damaged brand. Being seen to be tough on miscreants must bring risks as well as rewards. Perhaps senior people may have survived their own embarrassments as well - there but for the grace of God etc.

We'd all like to see independent oversight but I'm not sure how many would like to contribute to the cost. Governments see science as an easy mark for cost cutting in a difficult global economy. An independent monitor would be even more invisible. Industry funding might be better but the industry is for the most part struggling to fund its projects without a further burden.

Ultimately the life science people come up against the barrier of having to work their way up to and through Phase III trials that does seem to require a lot more rigour. But there are careers that can be funded without ever having to face such inconveniences if the scientists are prepared to remain academics and have perfected the knack for doing so.

The mention of the grant from Parkinsons Australia struck a chord. I have seen them give one or two smallish grants to biotechs. Presumably this is money largely raised from interested sufferers of the disease. Perhaps the recognition is more valuable than the grant. Sad to see this being abused, if that was the case.

I do have a lot of respect for most of the people I see working in this space. Ultimately the resources available will always be limited and rationed. The satisfactions involved in working through difficult areas of science, as well as potentially huge payoffs for the next blockbuster, will ensure the level of interest remains high and the cost pressures intensify. Those pressures will bring about poor decisions too often. Each institution will have its own culture, I imagine largely influenced by its senior people. Perhaps efforts should be concentrated on them and how they can influence the culture of their workplaces? I don't know.

And perhaps the media deserves a mention here as well. They are all too happy to spin a worst case scenario into a quick sensational story. Resources are an issue for them also obviously. But the ABC is just as happy to play that game as the commercial enterprises it seems to me. Any mea culpas from you Sophie? I hasten to say I enjoy your work.